The five-times grand slam win is no Lance Armstrong-scale villain but her doping crime was not victimless and she seems not to have learned any lessons
A week or so ago, the legal definition of British prisons was changed: they are no longer places of penalty. The new prison and courts bill, put forward by the justice secretary, Liz Truss, proposed that it was more important that they reform and rehabilitate offenders, and prepare them for a return to society. The news was not universally greeted with Nordic cool reasoning. The Sun called the legislation alarming, while Paul Nuttall, this weeks Ukip leader, said that it beggars belief. Stories of vacation camp inmates drinking, drugging, even frying steaks in their cells were rehashed.
But it builds you wonder what should be the purpose of drugs prohibitions in athletic? Here, I find myself in an uncomfortable stance: instinctively, Im kind of with Nuttall. I want the doping cheats to be punished. Reforming and rehabilitating them, ach, less bothered about that. Someones will always use illicit means to improve their performances, but if they are busted, they should know that real, stinging deprivations await them.
And ideally lets go full Nuttall now I would like some contrition. Doping offences are not a victimless crime: most obviously, the legitimate win or medallist who is presented with their reward years after the event to the sound of no hands clapping. And for us, the sports fans, its just really tedious is essential to replay events you have watched and speculate on what proportion banned substances played. I had seven years of that with Lance Armstrong, and frankly now Im cooked.
All of which brings us to the return on Wednesday of Maria Sharapova. Of course, Sharapova is not an Armstrong-level villain: she tested positive last year for meldonium, an over-the-counter cardiac supplement which is thought to improve workout capability that had recently been banned by the International Tennis Federation. We cant even call her a doper: she was not trying to gain an unjust advantage, according to the court of arbitration for sport, but had simply made an administrative mistake, failing to read a bunch of emails that were sent to her.
So whats the problem? Everyone skims their emails and we dont have the excuse of being world-class tennis players. Sharapova blundered, she sat on the sidelines for 15 months and now shes free to return. Shes been given a wildcard to the Porsche Grand Prix in Stuttgart, an offer that tournament is perfectly entitled to construct. Roland Garros and Wimbledon will presumably widen a similar invitation in due course. Sharapova will be back on the worlds biggest courts, whatever anyones suspicions, and doubtless as formidable and noisy as ever.
This is only an issue if we hold on, somewhat indignantly, to the idea of punishing wrongdoers. Surely everything seems to be falling into place rather nicely for Sharapova right now. Stuttgart has delayed her first-round match against Roberta Vinci until Wednesday, the day her forbid expires. She will have been farther buoyed by the news this week that Serena Williams is pregnant and will miss the rest of the season. Sharapova, who turned 30 this week, hasnt beat Williams since the Russian was a teenager.
Sharapova is a ferocious competitor and would not have enjoyed missing a calendar year of grand slams, but objectively things could be much worse. Of her major sponsors, merely Tag Heuer fell her; Nike, Evian, Head and Porsche who, by happy coincidence, bankroll the event in Stuttgart all stuck with her. And during her ban, shes had plenty of frying-steak-in-her-cell moments: she was on front rows at New York Fashion Week, in selfies with Elton John at a tennis event in Las Vegas, glammed up for the Vanity Fair Oscar Party.
Shes also, presumably, had plenty of time to work on her forthcoming autobiography. The title, appropriately enough: Unstoppable .
Where the Sharapova situation is trickier for me is the bit about being contrite. Shes not. She dedicates no indication of feeling that she has do wrong. In fact, her strongest criticism is saved for the ITF, which she believes should have taken her aside and merely an official to an athlete told her about the positive doping test and worked out how to handle it. Instead, she feels, they chose to make an example of her.
There is a problem here. Tennis has a reputation as a clean sport: almost all of the few positive tests have been for recreational drug use. Martina Hingis had a small amount of cocaine in her system; so did Richard Gasquet, although he argued( successfully, bizarrely) that it entered his system after he had kissed a woman in a Miami nightclub and had his forbid reduced. Sharapova, in fact, is the first real lawsuit regarding a name player and a potentially performance-enhancing substance.
The truth is that, should you be so inclined, tennis is an excellent sport to cheat at. It is, in Ukip parlance, legendarily soft on crime. With the exception of one journeyman player Wayne Odesnik, an American now banned for 15 years authorities have never caught a player utilizing EPO, human growth hormone or synthetic testosterone. Last year, an ESPN survey of 31 professional tennis players found that almost a quarter personally knew a player “whos been” used performance-enhancing drugs. Two-thirds is of the opinion that the athletic did not do enough testing.
A World Anti-Doping Agency report in 2014 revealed that the ITF determined a comparatively tiny number of miscreants in tennis: one in 985 drug exams was positive, versus one in 274 in track and field and one in 296 in pro cycling.
Sharapova has skilfully sidestepped this disagreement, though to be fair she has worked really hard during her career to improve her movement. There have been a few murmurings from fellow players about the decision to offer her wildcards, rather than stimulating her earn her ranking phases again disrespectful said Caroline Wozniacki but they have been easy enough for tournament organisers to ignore. Theres a countdown to Sharapovas return on her Twitter page, almost as if a gross injustice will soon be overturned. Im a gentle spirit, she has told us. Im not made of indignation, resentment or resentment.
Im not made of anger, resentment or rancor either, but why, then, does it feel as if no lessons are being learned?
Read more: www.theguardian.com